The fact of the New World Order's existence can be verified by much the same way as other historical facts of which one has no personal knowledge - the preponderance of evidence contained in the written and quoted statements of renowned world leaders and historians.
If one were to ask who was the first President of the United States, it would be somewhat like asking what color is green. We would be amazed, however, at the number of people who do not know who the second president was. But what makes everyone so sure that Washington was indeed the first president? Obviously, no one living today can claim first-hand knowledge of the fact and certainly none living ever voted for him. The reason we are so sure that Martha's husband was the first is the large amount of evidence, both historical and anecdotal.
There is, however, another historical phenomenon nearly as verifiable as George's number one tenure as chief executive, yet it is met with such skepticism and jaundiced visage that its proponents treat the fact of their own belief in it with somewhat the same embarrassment as if admitting there were mental illness in the family tree.
That historical precept is a tightly orchestrated political movement referred to by several names, among them the New World Order (NWO) or One World Government, etc. The motivation for this editorial is nothing less than the author's former skepticism - extreme skepticism - and very definitely former.
The fact of the New World Orders existence can be verified by much the same way as other historical facts of which one has no personal knowledge - the preponderance of evidence contained in the written and quoted statements of renowned world leaders and historians. The following are samples from some of the most august and even infamous notables of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England stated in 1844: "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Winston Churchill stated to the London press in 1922: "From the days of Sparticus Wieshophf, Karl Marx, Trotski, Belacoon, Rosa Luxenberg, and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."
John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York, 1918-1925: "The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities states and nation."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter dated November 21, 1933: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for President, 1964, in his book "With no Apologies" states: "The Trilateral Commission is the international....[It] is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - POLITICAL, MONETARY, INTELLECTUAL, and ECCLESIASTICAL."
Robert Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney General: "All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building a New World Order."
But why, one may ask, has there not been more press coverage of such a well established movement, and how have its antagonists, those who would expose it, been so effectively excoriated and labeled as crackpots? For those who think that the "Free Press" is free and uncontrolled, the following is submitted for your consideration:
David Rockefeller, founder of the aforementioned Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of that organization in June of 1991: "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination [read that "democracy"] practiced in past centuries."
John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the most powerful and prestigious newspaper on earth, The New York Times, when asked to give a toast to the "free press" at the New York Press Club stated: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
How does this subtle but effective censorship of the news media take place? Consider the following scenario. Recently former FBI agent, Gary W. Aldrich who had been assigned to the White House published a book in which were contained several allegations he apparently could not substantiate. In his interview on ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley" Aldrich claimed his book "Unlimited Access" contained ninety-eight percent his own observations.
The really interesting part of this is the comment made by White House Senior Advisor George Stephanopoulos on ABC in response to Aldrich's interview. He said, "Someone should have to pass a bare threshold of credibility before they're put on the air to millions of viewers." Keeping in mind the fact that virtually no one but the White House Chief of Staff has more ready access to the President than his senior advisor, this statement takes on an ominous tone.
First of all, if a former member of the most powerful, highly trained law enforcement and investigatory agency on earth does not "pass a bare threshold of credibility," who does? Stephanopoulos? In whom would the White House Senior Advisor invest such authority? The answer seems rather obvious that the definition of credibility is a moving target whose position at any given moment would be determined by the White House--and that definition would ultimately rest in what they wanted at the moment.
Liberty of conscience has always been in greatest danger from those who would establish themselves as the determiners of what information - true, false or questionable - should be available to the citizenry. One might skeptically ask, what harm could have arisen from Stephanopoulos' comment, or was he merely expressing his opinion with no real plan to implement it?
Quoting from an article published in the Washington Post, July 1, 1996, "Stephanopoulos has put pressure on the television networks not to give Aldrich a forum, and the campaign seemed to be bearing fruit.... Both CNN's 'Larry King Live' and NBC's 'Dateline' canceled plans to interview Aldirch, although executives at both shows said they had not talked to the White House."
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This page is in the public domain.